Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-1994 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA' SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �J MEETING DATE OCTOBER 5, 1994 ORIGINATING DEPT. CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: NELSON GARDENS PUBLIC HEARING //020 AGENDA ITEM 9 CITY MGR. �f Recommended Motion(s): Direct the City Attorney to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Community Foundation which either (a) provides for the donation of two acres of property to the city, or (b) provides for a donation of funds to the city, both in consideration for rights to. develop the property as outlined in the City Manager's report dated October 5, 1994. Report Summary: The. City has been entertaining a series of proposals from the Community Foundation with regards to the disposition of the Nelson property which the Foundation intends to sell. Two proposals have been negotiated and are the subject of, the public hearing. The first is to allow development of a five lot subdivision and a donation of two acres of the property to the city which it would be precluded from selling for five years. The second is to donate funds to the City's Park Development Fund, $640,000 if a ten lot subdivision is approved, $585,000 if a nine lot subdivision is approved and $64,000 less for each lot in a subdivision with less than nine lots. If either proposal goes forward, it would require a cancellation of the current Williamson Act contract which expires at the end of the year 2000, a change in zoning to allow more than the current two parcels of land, and an amendment to the Land Use Element of the general plan. Fiscal Impacts: If the first option is chosen and five homes are ultimately built, the city would receive the normal revenue from park dedication fees ($8,160 per lot) , the new construction tax ($1.00 per square foot), and property transfer tax ($.55 per thousand dollars of value transferred), plus the normal permit and fee revenue which accompanies all new development. Offsetting some of the revenue would be the cost of servicing the five new dwelling units and the maintenance of the two acre parcel, which at a minimum would require annual weed abatement even if left in an unimproved state. Should the two acres be developed into a park or similar community use, it is expected that the capital cost would approach $200,000 unless structures were involved in which case the cost would grow significantly. If the second option is chosen, the above would apply for the approved number of dwelling units but there would be no added cost to the city. to maintain a two acre parcel of land. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: On September 19th press releases were faxed to the Saratoga News and KSAR. On the same date a memo was mailed to the six individuals who had requested specific notice of this public hearing, and on September 21st a legal notice appeared in the Saratoga News. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The city will lose the opportunity of either acquiring two acres of land or a significant contribution to the Park Development Fund. Also, the five to ten houses would not be built until sometime after the year 2001 when the property leaves the Williamson Act contract. Follow Up Actions: The Memorandum of Understanding would be prepared by the City: Attorney and submitted to the Community Foundation for action. If approved the MOU would return for approval by the City Council. Attachments: Staff report dated October 5, 1994 City Council Resolution 2468 Letter dated January 30, 1989 containing Ainsley proposal 0 o SSA R 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 DATE: October 5, 1994 TO: City Council FROM: Harry R. Peacock, City Manager SUBJECT: Nelson Property Public Hearing COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Karen Tucker Donald L. Wolfe Recommended Action: At the conclusion of the public hearing determine which course of action the City should pursue with the Community Foundation: 1. Seek a Memorandum of Understanding which would result in a donation of two acres of the property to the City under the conditions set forth by the Foundation. 2. Seek a Memorandum of Understanding which would result in a donation of funds to the Park Development Fund under the conditions set forth by the Foundation. 3. Take no action in regards to the Foundation proposals. Background: The history of the relationship between the City and the Nelson property goes back many years. This includes the request by the former owner (Frank Nelson), in 1971, to have the property subject to a Williamson Act contract for which, in exchange for a reduced property tax burden, Nelson agreed not to develop the property beyond the two dwellings which currently exist on the property. Ultimately the property was acquired by the Nelson Foundation which, in 1987, approached the City with a proposal to sell the property to Ainsley Development, receive an early release from the Williamson Act, subdivide the property for development and donate money to the City for various purposes. The City Council's initial action to this request was the passage of Resolution 2468 which approved a tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act contract on February 17, 1988. A copy of that resolution is attached. Subsequent to that action the Nelson Foundation filed a request for a General Plan Amendment which was initially heard by the City Council on June 15, 1988, and continued to July 6, 1988, at which time it was continued to December 21, 1988, and a volunteer committee was established to consider options to the full development of the property. The volunteer committee, the Nelson Gardens Task Force Ad Hoc Committee, completed its work and Printed on recycled paper. Nelson Property Public Hearing October 5, 1994 Page 2 prepared a final written report to the City Council on December 21, 1988. The report considered, but did not recommend, five options for the future use of the property: -- Leave the property with its current zoning and use - Develop the property as a special community garden historical park -- Develop the property as part housing and part passive use park -- Develop the property as part housing and part private open space -- Develop the property entirely with housing. At the Council meeting of December 21, 1988, the City Council voted 2 -2 to approve the General -Plan Amendment so the matter was continued to January 4, 1989. At that meeting the matter was continued to February 1, 1989, at the request of Ainsley Development. During that time Ainsley made further offers to the City.in an effort to get approval for the General Plan Amendment. The final offer was contained in a letter dated January 30, 1989, which offered to: contribute $110,000 to the Park Development Fund, $250,000 to development of Hakone Gardens, an additional $90,000 to the Park Development Fund to establish a demonstration project at the Historic Orchard, and $30,000 -a year for ten years to maintain the demonstration project. A copy. of the letter is attached. Despite the increased offer, the City Council voted 3 -2 against granting the General Plan Amendment. We jump ahead now to 1990 when the Nelson Foundation put the property on the market. At that time the City made several offers to purchase the property outright, but the offers were refused. The City even considered condemnation action but ultimately decided against such a course of action for both policy and financial reasons. The Nelson Foundation was so notified by the City by letter on May 2, 1991. Subsequently, on September 17, 1991, the City received from the Nelson Foundation a notice of non - renewal for the Williamson Act contract. On July 17, 1991, the City Council unanimously adopted a new master plan for park and trail development. While that plan included the possible acquisition of the Nelson property, it made the following statement, "The purchase of this site would represent a significant expense for the City. Given the limited amount of financing available through the General Fund and the Park Development Fund, it is unlikely that acquisition of this site would go ahead unless the City could find a special source of funding." Nelson Property Public Hearing October 5, 1994 Page 3 The plan also lays out, conceptually, the future plans for the two park sites currently not completely developed, Kevin Moran and Azule. Both parks contemplate sports playing fields as a part of their development and the combined cost is estimated to be some $900,000 in 1991 dollars. Further, earlier this year the City did receive an inquiry from the Cupertino School District as to the possibility of combining the field area of Blue Hills School with Azule Park to create an integrated park and playground development on the combined sites. The staff, at the direction of the City Council, has responded in the affirmative to such a suggestion, pending sufficient funds in the Park Development Fund to carry out any proposed joint development plan. This brings us to 1994. The property has now been acquired by the Community Foundation and talks begin again regarding the City's interest in purchasing the property. Of course, between 1991 and 1994 major changes in the City's financial position have occurred and park development money has been devoted to the development of Beauchamps Park and the purchase of land for and development of Ravenwood Park. These two projects deplete the Park Development Fund and even with the recent infusion of funds from the Kerwin Ranch subdivision and the Saratoga Nursery subdivision, the Park Development Fund is still in arrears by some $36,000 as of October 1, 1994. Initially several options are considered by both the City and the Foundation and these ultimately lead to the two proposals which are before the City Council for public hearing tonight. Discussion: There are two proposals to be considered at the public hearing. The first is that the City would become the owner of approximately two acres of the property and the Foundation or its assignee would receive development approval of a 5 residential lot subdivision on the remaining three plus acres. The City would agree to retain ownership of the property for a period of five years. The second is that the City would receive a contribution of $640,000 to its Park Development Fund and the Foundation or its assignee would receive development approval of a ten residential lot subdivision. If the City approved a nine lot subdivision, the contribution would be $5851000. If it was for a subdivision of fewer than nine lots, the contribution would be reduced by an additional $64,000 per lot. In both cases, just as in 1988, any development of the property would depend upon an early, cancellation of the Williamson Act contract (with the appropriate 12.5% of value penalty fee paid to the City by the seller) , and require both a change of zoning and an Nelson Property Public Hearing October 5, 1994 Page 4 amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The City and the Foundation would execute a non - binding Memorandum of Understanding spelling out in general the proposal made by the Foundation for development of the property, and the process the City would undertake in order to provide a comprehensive, public review and consideration of the proposal. The Memorandum of Understanding would reflect the fact that a Council decision to consider the development proposal would not in any manner constitute an issuance or a grant, nor would it bind the City to issue or grant any permit or approval, whether ministerial or discretionary, relating to the development of the property. The issue before the City Council is what action, if any, it should take at the conclusion of public testimony. Should it decide to accept one of the two options suggested by the Foundation, then it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a draft Memorandum of Understanding for consideration by the Foundation Board and the City Council at the mutual convenience of the parties. Should it decide to take no action, then the following possibilities could occur: The Foundation finds a buyer who wishes to develop the property in the near term. In order to do so that buyer would have to approach the City in much the same way the Foundation did and request an early release from the Williamson Act, a change of zone and an amendment to the general plan. The Foundation finds a buyer who does not seek immediate use or development of the property beyond that which is allowed under the current development restrictions. In such a case, since the property consists of two legal lots, two dwellings could be built on the property, just as presently exist. That would, of course, depend entirely on the wishes of the buyer. The buyer could, for example, offer to donate the property to the City for park and open space purposes, or develop the park as a private demonstration orchard, farm, and garden for use by community groups and the educational community by invitation. The Foundation fails to find a buyer. The property then would remain as is and come out of the Williamson Act at the end of 2001. 'Harry Peacock City eanager f BERLINER, COHEN & BIAGINI SANFORD A. BERLINER'. ATTORNEYS AT LAW KATHLEEN K. SIPLE SAMUEL J. COHEN' CHRIS SCOTT GRAHAM HUGH L. ISOLA' A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL C RAFN 1 E LYNN G. MCKINNON ANDREW L FABER II � JAMES P CASHMAN D Ir WILLIAM J. GOINES' UNION BANK BUILDING �, E [f Y SCOTT R. HOVER *SMOOT ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS P. LAWRENCE KLOSE 99 ALMADEN BOULEVARD. SUITE MICHAEL H. KALKSTEIN - THOMAS P MURPHY MYRON L BRODY SAN JOSE.'CALIFORNIA.9511 JAN 3 11989 STEVEN J �CASAD RALPH J. SWANSON JEANETTE R. YOUNGBLOOD PEGGY L SPRINGGAY TELEPHONE 14081 286.3800 /� ♦ THOMAS A. BARTASI JOSEPH E. DWORAK CITY OF SARATOCU JONATHAN D. WOLF SAMUEL L FARE NANCY F THORNTON ALAN J. PINNER CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE' JEROLD A. REITON LINDA A. CALLON ROBERT L. CHORTEK NORMAN D. THOMAS CYNTHIA M. LIMA JEFFREY M. FORSTER STACY L. SAETTA GARYJ.COHAN BRADLEY D. BOSOMWORTH JOHN M. DALEY PAMELA M. SCHUUR ROBERTA S. HAYASHI JOHN R. WIERZBICKI. JR. RUSSELL J. HANLON THOMAS J. MADDEN, 111 TIMOTHY T. HUBER p COLBY A. CAMPBELL MARY BETH LONG January 30, 1909 - EILEEN D. MATHEWS NANCY J. JOHNSON STEWART LENZ ANNE L NEETER - SUSAN B. CORNMAN KEVIN F. KELLEY - LORI D, BALLANCE SCOTT M. PHILLIPS OF COUNSEL CAROLYN N. FRINK THEODORE J. BIAGINI EDWARD F MALYSZ CLARENCE A. KELLOGG. JR. 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FACSIMILE: 14081 998 5388 Mayor Kare Anderson and City C ncilmembers. City of aratoga 13777 itvale Avenue Sarat ga, CA 95070 Re: General Plan Amendment /Ainsley Development GPA 87 -003 - Your Aaenda of 2/1/89. Item 6A Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: The continuance you granted to Ainsley has produced good news. Ainsley has worked with the Nelson Foundation to accommodate the City's request for additional funds to establish a working demonstration orchard in the City's Heritage Orchard in the Civic Center. In addition to the Nelson Foundation contribution of $110,000 to the City's Park Fund and $250,000 to Hakone Gardens, $90,000 more will .go to the Park Fund to establish the demonstration project, along with $30,000 a year to maintain it for a period of ten years. The sales price, has been increased to accommodate these increased contributions to the City. (This greatly exceeds the funds you required as a condition of the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act for the property. Please remember also that the Foundation must pay a cancellation penalty of about .$200,000 for deferred property taxes.) As you know, these funds are contingent upon sale of the property by the Nelson Foundation to Ainsley with City approval of nine lots on the property consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Other proposals for lesser development of the property are, however, still before you. The benefits to the City and to Nelson Foundation recipients of this proposal are manyfold. Besides providing the $250,000 matching funds Hakone needs to receive another $250,000 donation, and much needed monies for the Park Fund, �the Nelson Foundation itself will gain approximately $184,000 additional gross income each year from the sale and thereby increase its cash available for charitable recipients annually by approximately $172,000. Mayor Karen Anderson and City Councilmembers January 30, 1989 Page -2- You received from the Nelson Foundation a.complete listing of its grant recipients -- please note especially Hope, Live Oak Adult Day Service, Eastfield -Ming Quong, Homemaker Services, Inc., KARA, Our Lady of Fatima Villa, Saratoga Senior Coordinating Council Foundation, Saratoga Historical Foundation, Saratoga Community Gardens, Saratoga Fire Department, the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, youth homes- -just a few among many supported over the years. (You've received letters from several of these recipients favoring the Ainsley proposal). An issue rightly raised, however, is whether the,proposed development is suitable for the-property--9 homes on 5.1 acres. It is! I again attach for your review the Saratoga staff report of June 15, 1988 recommending approval of the requested General Plan amendment. It notes that medium - density residential is consistent with the adjacent developed residential properties on Trinity, Malcolm and Pontiac Streets. Upper Hills and Saratoga Hills Roads are General Planned low- density, so the _staff is recommending a General Plan designation of very -low- density for the abutting rear part of the Nelson Property. (The Planning Commission also found the proposed development consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.) The City required wildlife and horticultural assessments as part of its environmental assessment, and has a plan to protect the few rare or unusual trees on the property. Please grant the General Plan amendment. This is truly a f unique opportunity for the City. Usually development approvals benefit just buyer and seller - -here all the City residents and local community organizations benefit, without detriment to anyone. Very truly yours, BERLINER, COHEN & BIAGINI LINDA A. CALLON LAC /dj e Enclosure cc: Mr. John Higgins, Nelson Property Foundation / Mr. Harry Peacock, City.Manager ✓ Mr. Steven Emslie, Planning Director Harold Toppel, Esq., City Attorney Mr. Bruce Bowen, Ainsley Mr. Jeff Wyatt, Ainsley (each w /enclosure) J�. NO RESOLUTION NO. 2468 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF A WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20851 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD WHEREAS, The Florence Nelson Foundation is the owner of certain real property located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga, California, commonly known as Nelson Gardens (hereinafter referred to as "the Property "); and WHEREAS, the Property is currently subject to a "Williamson Act Contract, ", executed on or about June 18, 1971, pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, otherwise known as the Williamson Act; and WHEREAS, The Florence Nelson Foundation . has petitioned the City of Saratoga for cancellation of its Williamson Act Contract with respect to the entire Property, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 51280 -51286 of the Government Code; .and WHEREAS, the proposed alternative use of the Property is to subdivide the same into nine lots for the construction upon each lot of a single family residence; and ® WHEREAS, public hearings on the requested cancellation were conducted by the City Council on December 2, 1987, and January 20, 1988, with notice thereof being given'as required by law, at which time any person interested in the matter was given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered the oral and documentary evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to the requested cancellation; and WHEREAS, the City Council.. has approved a Negative Declaration determining that the requested cancellation will have no substantial adverse impacts upon the environment, within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act; and. F-1 WHEREAS, the City Council has found and determined that: (a) The Property is only 5.1 acres in size and is not large enough to support productive and economically viable agricultural uses. Operation of.the Property as an orchard has consistently resulted in economic losses, which the owner is no longer able to sustain. There is no other reasonable or comparable agricultural use to which the Property may be put. The financial inability to hold, operate and maintain the Property in its present use, or any reasonable or comparable alternative agricultural use, is further demonstrated by the fact that ownership of the Property was relinquished by the Nature Conservancy and the California State Parks Foundation. -1- ��-0-59 (b) The Property does not constitute "prime agricultural land," an "agricultural preserve," a "scenic highway corridor," a "wildlife habitat area," or a "managed wetland area," as such terms are defined in Section 51201 of the Government Code.. Accordingly, the Property does not fall within any of the categories of land which the Williamson Act is primarily intended to preserve. (c) The Property is totally surrounded by fully developed residential neighborhoods. For the purpose .of constructing nine single family residences, there is no other land within a radius of one mile from the Property which is suitable in terms of size and physical characteristics, or available in terms of being currently offered for sale or intended for development. Although vacant land could be found elsewhere in the City, this land is not proximate with respect to geographic location and, to the extent such vacant land is located in the undeveloped hillside areas of the City, the utilization thereof would result in a less contiguous pattern of urban development. (d) The Florence Nelson Foundation is a non - profit organization established for charitable purposes. The proceeds to be received by the Foundation from its intended sale of the Property will be utilized for the conduct of its charitable activities, thereby providing a benefit to the public. In addition, a specific public benefit will be derived by the City of Saratoga and its residents as a result of the offer by the Foundation to donate a substantial portion of the sale proceeds to the City's park development fund and to the Hakone Foundation, a City- sponsored non - profit trust established for the purpose of operating a public park known as Hakone Gardens. By virtue of these contributions, the Property can be put to an alternative use in a manner that will promote and enhance the recreational and open space facilities within the City. (e) The Florence Nelson Foundation has delivered to the City a notice of non- renewal of its Williamson Act Contract, thereby indicating its intention to terminate such contract whether or not a cancellation is approved by the City Council. The Foundation has further indicated its inability to continue operating the Property as an orchard or to otherwise open the Property for public use because of operating deficits and liability exposure. Consequently, if the Williamson,Act Contract is not cancelled at this time, the Property will not be put to any productive or public use and is likely to fall into a state of neglect and disrepair. This condition would constitute a blight upon the neighborhood and a potential health hazard and attractive nuisance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: 1. Based upon the findings and determinations described above, and subject to compliance with all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph 2, a tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract relating to the property owned by The Florence Nelson Foundation, located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road, is hereby approved on the ground that cancellation of such contract is in the public interest, by virtue of a finding and determination by the City Council that: -2- V (a) Other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act; and (b) Development of the Property will provide a more contiguous pattern of urban development than development of. proximate noncontracted land. 2. A certificate of final cancellation of said Williamson Act Contract shall not be recorded until all of the following conditions and requirements have been fully satisfied: (a) The City's General Plan and Zoning Map shall have been modified to change the designated use of the Property from agricultural to single .family residential. The permitted density of development shall be as determined by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and nothing herein shall constitute or be construed as the approval of a subdivision having nine lots, or any other specific number. (b) Tentative and final subdivision map approval shall have been granted by the City, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. -� Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed as a waiver, relinquishment or restriction upon the City's right to impose conditions, requirements, dedications and exactions in connection with the granting of subdivision map approval. (c) All requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act relating to modification of the General Plan and Zoning Map and the proposed subdivision of the Property shall have been fully satisfied. . (d) The Florence Nelson Foundation shall pay in full the amount of the cancellation fee computed under the provisions of Section 51283 of the Government Code. In the event such fee is not paid within one year from the date of recording the certificate of tentative cancellation, the fee shall be recomputed as of the date on which the City receives notice. from the Foundation that all of the conditions set forth herein have been satisfied. (e) The Florence Nelson Foundation shall have fulfilled its offer to contribute the sum of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00) to the City of Saratoga, for deposit into the City's Park Development Fund, and to contribute the sum of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00) to the Hakone Foundation; provided, however, if the gross sale price for the Property is reduced below $2,400,000, an amount equal to ten percent (10 90) of the gross sale price shall be contributed, to be divided equally between the City's Park Development Fund and the Hakone Foundation. 3. 'The conditions and requirements set forth in Paragraph 2 above shall be satisfied within twelve (12) months from the date of this Resolution, or within such -3- coo 81 additional period of time as may be allowed by further resolution of the City Council; otherwise, this. Resolution shall be null and void. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record in the Office of the Recorder for Santa Clara County, California, a certificate of tentative cancellation, in accordance with the provisions of Section 51283.4 of the Government Code. s s s Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 17th day of Febraury, 1988, by the following vote: AYES: COancilwinbe-r's IU.ava, Myles and Mayor Peterson NOES: C ancilm- -inners Anderson and Clevenger_ ABSENT: None Mayo ATTEST: ✓ City Clerk -4- 000062 RAY L. BYRNE 13904 TRINITY AVE. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 September 29, 1994 TO: Mayor Burger & Saratoga City Council Members Having just learned of the planned discussion of the Nelson Gar - dens issue at the October 5 Council meeting, which I may be un- able to attend, I wanted to make known my feelings. My concern is that the strident voice of the small minority_ of citizens who call themselves "Friends of the Nelson Gardens" may tend to drawn the views of more objective.persons and create the impression that they represent the prevailing opinion. I am a 31 year resident.of Saratoga, all of those years having been spent with my wife-and family at the address on this let- terhead, half a block from the Nelson Gardens. I am conversant with the history of the Nelson property from the early 1970s when it was offered by Frank Nelson as a gift to the City of Saratoga, which declined the offer. We have enjoyed seeing the property remain an orchard through the intervening years,' but have been aware that this was a privilege and not a right in perpetuity of the property owners in the immediate vicinity. The argument that we need more parks and open space in this neigh• bor*k od simply does not square with reality. Foothill Park and Wildwood Park lie within approximately half a mile.from Nelson Gardens. My wife and I babysit our grandchildren weekly,.and we frequently take them to these parks, where we normally find the usage to be very light. It has been my contention since this matter became an.issue that it represents the concerns of those immediately surrounding Nelson Gardens and few others. I doubt that more than one - fourth of Saratogans even know where it is located. If an attempt is made to create a park on part.or all of the property, it is almost certain to.involve taxing the citizenry to create and maintain it. I would be adamantly opposed to such taxation, and it it were to be proposed the entire population of Saratoga should have an opportunity to vote on the matter. I appreciate your considering my views, which I am sure are shared by many of the more quiet types in our great community. Sincerely, September 27, 1994 Saratoga City Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members: I oppose the city purchasing the Nelson Gardens property. At a time when there is not enough money for urgent needs and the city is looking for new ways to tax its citizens for resources, it would be unthinkable to use reserves for this purpose. Saratoga already owns the Heritage Orchard at Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue. There is no need to acquire another orchard which would require much renovation and maintenance. A new park in this area is not needed. Foot - hill Park is only a few blocks from the Nel- son site. We walk by there often and it is almost never being used. That park is in need of attention. If there are not funds to maintain this property, where would the money come from for Nelson Garden expenses? If the council members are in doubt as to the wishes of the citizens of Saratoga in this matter, the issue should be decided by the vbtets -~atea future election.. Sincerely, Evelyn Boisen 13896 Lynde Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 69/27/19' --lei 4158549766 Ia. L. HEP1ET7 OI I ,FS OF GARY L. NEMETZ 2x,20 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 101 MENLG PARK, CALIFOP NiA 94025 *,AILING ADrA SS: P,t -), GQX 95h. SAP,P:TO�:A, CALIFOP.NIR 9507! -i1y5H TELEPHONF (415) 854-0479 FAC;SiMit.E (415) 854 -97E,0 September 27, 1994 Saratoga City Ann Marie Berc Karen Tucker,y Gillian Moran, Paul Jacobs, Donald Wolfe City Hall Councilmembers: er, Mayor Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Councilmembers: I was informed yesterday Of the City Courcila alternati o.?es for approving development of Nelson Gardens by the Community Foundation. I want to express my opposition to the proposals as laid out in the notice Dated September 19,1994. I support any effort the City can hake try preserve all or any portion of the Nelson Gardens property as open space. Some on the counci1 may be aware of the history of the property that it was initially set aside in a tax qualified charitable trust to be preserved until the appropriate governmental agency could take ownership and operate it for open space purposes. No party has an economic loss as none has paid for the property other than the original Nelson family who through their last surviving patriarch asked that the City preserve it as a park. The only result from development would be the loss of an asset to the community, in return for a short term contribution to the City fund. The proposals as stated are no different than those rejected in the well documented 1987 proposal by the Nelson Foundation and Ainsley Development where the community cautiously, studiously, and decisively rejected the development of the property. Neither the former Belson, Foundation or the current Community Foundation has paid for the property but rather both acquired the property with knowledge of the well documented intent of the farmer owner:, Frank Nelson, that it he preserved; please refer to the record of council hearings subsequent to December 1587 regarding the property and special committee or which I served on in 1988 that studied the property. Thus the .idea that constitutional property rights were somehow being infringed by the continued and originally intended use of the property for public open space was not applicable th_n and noither is row, The proposal as stated in tho September 19th notice again raises the Spector of diVl di m-T th,� nrynm,�, 4 *-.r T.. L1__ 1,��x• j+A 09/2711994 15:58 4156549760 G.L.HEMETG PAGE 02 of how much money per lot will be contributed to the city's coffers from development is an inordinately unfair burden upon those community members who have worked to find an open space alternative. To set his formula as the council's decisional criteria legitimizes a form of bribery that too many cities have fallen victim to and Saratoga should try to avoid, It also raises the Spector of the contribution of the property to the Community Foundation as a mere subterfuge to get around a well debated and properly deeded issue by the prior council. Concurred in by-the Saratoga community when all the facts and issues were presented completely and openly during the previous process involving Nelson Gardens subsequent to 1987. The Nelson Foundation has consistently demonstrated its bias against preserving the property and thereby stalled the attempt to buy the property in the time period since 1988 when financial and political. Capital was available to complete the acquisition for open space. The acquisition by the city would have occurred prior to this new council's seating had certain dilatory tactics not been present in those negotiations casting doubts on the present hidden agenda behind the contribution of the property to the Community Foundation; why didn't the Nelson Foundation follow Franc Nelson's intent and give it to the City instead. Their reviving essential the same development proposal without integrating any of the neighborhood concorns that were supported by the majority of Saratoga during the previous process is unfair if not a cynical way for the former Nelson Foundation to obviate the overwhelming rejection of their past development desires. Considering Nelson Garden or a part of it as a potential park site has been and is still the best solution most supported by the majority of the surrounding residents as well as the Saratoga community in general. Even the last development proposal from the Ainslay Group during the 1988 committee meetings included a strip of park on the lower portion of the property; which I supported and was revived in Mrs. Anderson's comments when the issue came up before the council late last year. The proposal to possibly contribute the upper parcel, ignores the lower parcels superior value as a park, as well as inappropriately highlighting a $640,000 economic cost to the City for not allowing the entire parcel to be developed. This amount should instead be looked at as the starting point of what the City loss is for the Nelson Foundation not following Frank Nelson's intent, not a loss caused by those interested in preserving valuable open space that should remain such and was intended so by the owner who actually paid for the property. The alternatives as framed in the City notice give no recognition to the great amount of thought and work that went into planning a workable solution for the Nielson Gardens Saratoga, save a one time monetary boos will quickly be disapated, or the best interests of t to the City funds that Nemetz Letter Page 2 September 27, 1994 09/ 2 "19-19 4 15: 39 4158549760 . L. NEMETE FAGE 04 1 will be traveling on October 5th but urge the council to avoid action that night that would have such a long term effect on the neighborhood and for which the rewards to Saratoga would be short tax-m and insignificant in the long run. As an immediate neighbor I would support any reasonable plan, financial if necessary, to aid the process of preserving this open space. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the office at 415 -854 -9479 or at home at 408,867 -4592 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Gary L. Nem, Nemetx Lotter Page 3 Septembsr 27* 1994 September 26, 1994 Mayor Ann Marie Burger City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Mayor Burger: Audrey & I have been reading about the possibility of Saratoga planning to purchase the Nelson Garden property. At the same time, we read that the city is short of funds. Why do the residents of this city need a so called park that will benefit only a few people for a second "Heritage Garden" type of park which would not be usable for a play ground, picnic, tennis, ball park or other uses a person might normally think of in a park? This piece of property is located only three blocks from Foothill Park and the Foothill School play ground that contains ball diamonds, play ground equipment and open space and is available after school and weekends. The City missed their best, opportunity to have housing, some open space, and money to support the city parks as well as Hakone Gardens in 1988. Few residents of Saratoga even know where or what Nelson Gardens is. Open space would be for the few houses that face this property, paid for by all Saratoga residents. We often walk past there and note that the trees are old, diseased, and the buildings are in dis- repair. The entire hillside is a fire hazard, and any upkeep would be very expensive. In 1988 the Florence Nelson Foundation sold the development rights to Nelson Gardens saying "the property had become too expensive to maintain and was eroding money the foundation could donate to Charity ". (From San Jose Mercury News West Extra, March 16, 1994). We hope you will allow this property to be used for building sights as requested, this will increase the tax base and upgrade the neighborhood with homes and not force more people to commute to Morgan Hill or Gilroy. Filling in small open spaces cuts down on commute driving and pollution. Thank you for your consideration on this subject. Sincerely, 0 MAX/ & Au rey Rasmussen 20650 Woodward Ct. 867 -2495 cc: Saratoga City Council Members cc: Saratoga News Mrs. Jackie Welch 20925 Jacks Road Saratoga CA Sept. 19, i994 To: Members of the Saratoga City Council Members of the Saratoga Planning Commission Members of the Saratoga Parks and Recreation. Dept. Fortunately for future residents of Saratoga, the Nelson Garden has not been developed into yet more suburban housing. The City still has a chance to preserve this historic reminder of Saratoga's rural past. All the former agricultural land in this part of the valley, and indeed, now in the wooded hills, has been covered with houses, buildings and streets, and, except for the few city parks, there is no land left for people to experience natural surroundings in their own community. During the rapid growth period of the '60's and '70's, farm land was considered, by City Planners, and indeed by farmers too, to be more valuable for houses than for orchards. Now, in our densely populated area (relatively speaking) the philosphy of city planning has to change. It is the responsibility of cities to provide green belt areas. This feature is recognized by those cities planning for the public good. Frank Nelson was a farmer who wanted his land to be more valuable as a farm than for houses. Let us hope there are still people in our city government who know the history of his dreams. Let us hope there are still people here that remember the golden years of the Saratoga Community Garden on the Odd Fellows grounds. Here, children could learn how the food they eat is grown - that peas come from plants and not from frozen food packages, and the wonder of a sprouting pumpkin seed. The Nelson Garden could be a demonstration farm, where apricots could be picked and dried in the sun, where classes could be held in the care and pruning of fruit trees, the planting of seeds in flats, the nurturing of soil through composting,and many other gardening techniques. I am sure the members of our Parks and Recreation Commission would know how to get such a program going. Every time I pass the former park site on Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue, I could kick myself for not being more vocal in urging the City Council to keep it as a park. What was once a delightfully refreshing sight of oak trees and a creek is now an unattractive scene of bland commercial buildings and a parking lot. What used to make Saratoga look like a unique place to live is now a continuation of the same commercial development you see all the way down Sunnyvale Road. Although the Nelson Garden is not as visible as that park site, the City could redeem itself and pay back its citizens for their bond money, as it were, by purchasing the Nelson Garden. The City would also be redeeming itself for its unsound decision to not accept the Nelson Garden when Frank Nelson offered it to the City for free. Our citizens and our children have been denied the enjoyment of this lovely orchard and creek all these years. MORE i i page 2 Jackie Welch While I am on the subject of orchards, I would like to point out the neglected appearance of the Saratoga Heritage Orchard next to the library.. It looks like an abandoned orchard, rather than the Heritage Park it was supposed to be, an as example of thriving apricot trees that once made Saratoga famous for its beauty. Another sorry example of uncared for trees in our City are the dead and dying Ginko trees along Big Basin Way. It looks like there is a lack of civic pride in the appearance of Saratoga's main street. Traditionally,.the main street reflects the character of the community, and I should think the City would want its Village to keep its reputation as a beautiful tree -lined main street. C�� �0 September 26, 1994 Mayor Ann Marie Burger City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Mayor Burger: Audrey & I have been reading about the possibility of Saratoga planning to purchase the Nelson Garden property. At the same time, we read that the city is short of funds. Why do the residents of this city need a so called park that will benefit only a few people for a second "Heritage Garden" type of park which would not be usable for a play ground, picnic, tennis, ball park or other uses a person might normally think of in a park? This piece of property is located only three blocks from Foothill Park and the Foothill School play ground that contains ball diamonds, play ground equipment and open space and is available after school and weekends. The City missed their best opportunity to have housing, some open space, and money to support the city parks as well as Hakone Gardens in 1988. Few residents of Saratoga even know where or what Nelson Gardens is. Open space would be for the few houses that face this property, paid for by all Saratoga residents. We often walk past there and note that the trees are old, diseased, and the buildings are in dis- repair. The entire hillside is a fire hazard, and any upkeep would be very expensive. In 1988 the Florence Nelson Foundation sold the development rights to Nelson Gardens saying "the property had become too expensive to maintain and was eroding money the foundation could donate to Charity ". (From San Jose Mercury News West Extra, March 16, 1994). We hope you will allow this property to be used for building sights as requested, this will increase the tax base and upgrade the neighborhood with homes and not force more people to commute to Morgan Hill or Gilroy. Filling in small open spaces cuts down on commute driving and pollution. Thank you for your consideration on this subject. Sincerely �A�w & Au rey Rasmusse��� 20650 Woodward Ct. 867 -2495 cc: Saratoga City Council Members cc: Saratoga News September 27, 1994 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, Ca 95070 To the Members of the City Council: We will be out of town on October 5 but would like to tell you our thoughts on the Nelson Gardens Proposals. We live on Trinity Avenue so are neighbors of the Nelson Gardens property. It has always been our feeling that it would be wonderful for every neighborhood to have its own park, but realistically that is impossible. We are fortunate enough to have Foothill School and the adjoining park area in our neighborhood, so we are luckier than most residents of Saratoga. Of course, we would like to see the Nelson property turned into a park for all to enjoy. But we are adamant that no public money be used for this whether it be for the purchase, the development or the ongoing upkeep. It seems even the proposal with the city getting the 2 acres would necessitate development and future ongoing expenses. If the Nelson property can be turned into a park under the above conditions of no cost to the taxpayers of Saratoga, we would be in favor. Otherwise, the only logical step is to accept the $640,000 for the Park Development Fund and let it be developed with 10 homes. This sounds very similar to a proposal that was made several years ago. At that time the City Council turned it down. Since that time the property has been an eyesore in the neighborhood. Please do what is best for the City of Saratoga by not incurring any new financial obligations at a time when the budget is being trimmed. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Very truly yours, oan and Robert Leonard 13803 Trinity Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 OFFICES OF GARY L. NEMETZ 2420 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 101 MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 958, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95071 -0958 TELEPHONE (415) 854 -9479 FACSIMILE (415) 854 -9760 September 27, 1994 Saratoga City Councilmembers: Ann Marie Berger, Mayor Karen Tucker, Gillian Moran, Paul Jacobs, Donald Wolfe City Hall Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Councilmembers: I was informed yesterday of the City Councils alternatives for approving development of Nelson Gardens by the Community Foundation. I want to express my opposition to the proposals as laid out in the notice Dated September 19,1994. I support any effort the City can make to preserve all or any portion of the Nelson Gardens property as open space. Some on the council may be aware of the history of the property that it was initially set aside in a tax qualified charitable trust to be preserved until the appropriate governmental agency could take ownership and operate it for open space purposes. No party has an economic loss as none has paid for the property other than the original Nelson family who through their last surviving patriarch asked that the City preserve it as a park. The only result from development would be the loss of an asset to the community, in return for a short term contribution to the City fund. The proposals. as stated are no different than those rejected in the well documented 1987 proposal by the Nelson Foundation and Ainsley Development where the community cautiously, studiously, and decisively rejected the development of the property. Neither the former Nelson Foundation or the current Community Foundation has paid for the property but rather both acquired the property with knowledge of the well documented intent of the former owner, Frank Nelson, that it be preserved; please refer to the record of council hearings subsequent to December 1987 regarding the property and special committee of which I served on in 1988 that studied the property. Thus the idea that constitutional property rights were somehow being infringed by the continued and originally intended use of the property for public open space was not applicable th °.n and neither is now. The proposal as stated in the September 19th notice again raises the Spector of dividing the community. To frame the issue in terms of how much money per lot will be contributed to the City's coffers from, development is an inordinately unfair burden upon those community members who have worked to find an open space alternative. To set his formula as the council's decisional criteria legitimizes a form of bribery that too many Cities have fallen victim to and Saratoga should try to avoid. It also raises the spector of the contribution of the property to the Community Foundation as a mere subterfuge to get around a well debated and properly decided issue by the prior council. Concurred in by the Saratoga community when all the facts and issues were presented completely and openly during the previous process involving Nelson Gardens subsequent to 1987. The Nelson Foundation has consistently demonstrated its bias against preserving the property and thereby stalled the attempt to buy the property in the time period since 1988 when financial and political capital was available to complete the acquisition for open space. The acquisition by the City would have occurred prior to this new council's seating had certain dilatory tactics not been present in those negotiations casting doubts on the present hidden agenda behind the contribution of the property to the Community Foundation; why didn't the Nelson Foundation follow Frank Nelson's intent and give it to the City instead. Their reviving essential the same development proposal without integrating any of the neighborhood concerns that were supported by the majority of Saratoga during the previous process is unfair if not a cynical way for the former Nelson Foundation to obviate the overwhelming rejection of their past development desires. Considering Nelson Garden or a part of it as a potential park site has been and is still the best solution most supported by the majority of the surrounding residents as well as the Saratoga community in general. Even the last development proposal from the Ainsley Group during the 1988 committee meetings included a strip of park on the lower portion of the property; which I supported and was revived in Mrs. Anderson's comments when the issue came up before the council late last year. The proposal to possibly contribute the upper parcel, ignores the lower parcels superior value as a park, as well as inappropriately highlighting a $640,000 economic cost to the City for not allowing the entire parcel to be developed. This amount should instead be looked at as the starting point of what the City loss is for the Nelson Foundation not following Frank Nelson's intent, not a loss caused by those interested in preserving valuable open space that should remain such and was intended so by the owner who actually paid for the property. The alternatives as framed in the City notice give no recognition to the great amount of thought and work that went into planning a workable solution for the Nelson Gardens Saratoga, save a one time monetary boos will quickly be disapated. or the best interests of t to the City funds that Nemetz Letter Page 2 September 27, 1994 I will be traveling on October 5th but urge the Council to avoid action that night that would have such a long term effect on the neighborhood and for which the rewards to Saratoga would be short term and insignificant in the long run. As an immediate neighbor I would support any reasonable plan, financial if necessary, to aid the process of preserving this open space. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the office at 415 - 854 -9479 or at home at 408 - 867 -4592 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Gary L. Nemetz Nemetz Letter Page 3 September 27, 1994 SEP 3 u I` A, 'BARBARA VOE.SLER W51 8UR125 WA V SARAZOCiA,CALI F. 95070 September 30, 1994 Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members, My plea to you is for your vote to SAVE THE NELSON GARDENS for the citizens of Saratoga and those who follow us. Nelson Gardens is a small patch of quiet beauty, and a reminder of rural Saratoga, amidst the hectic rush of our busy Silicon Valley. Frank Nelson's dream was to share his orchards and gardens with others. We are so lucky to have this very special place in Saratoga. There are very few left in our valley. Now, you have the opportunity to vote to protect this orchard. I hope you will be able to see the value of preserving this property and not developing it. I am very fortunate to have lived within one -half mile of Nelson Gardens for nearly twenty -seven years. Three or four mornings each week I walk past the Nelson property. On most mornings there are a few deer, sometimes only two or three, but on lucky mornings I have had the pleasure of seeing as many as eleven. What a thrill, everytime!!! To know that others also have this opportunity (right here in Saratoga) gives me a special feeling. Let's not lose this wonderful place to more development. You must act now to save it for the future. Your vote to preserve Nelson Garden and realize Frank Nelson's dream will be appreciated by many now, but most importantly by our children, grand children and great grand children. Sincerely n� Barbara S. Voester RAY L. BYRNE 13904 TRINITY AVE. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 September 29, 1994 TO: Mayor Burger & Saratoga City Council Members Having just learned of the planned discussion''of 'the Nelson Gar- dens issue at the October 5 Council meeting, which -I nay- -be un- able to attend, I wanted to make known my feelings: My concern, is that the strident voice of the small minority of citizens who call themselves "Friends of the Nelson Gardens" may tend to drown the views of more objective persons and create the impression that they represent the prevailing opinion. I am a 31 year resident of Saratoga, all of those years having been spent with my wife and family at the address on this let- terhead, half a block from the Nelson Gardens. I am conversant with the history of the Nelson property from the early 197Os when it was offered by Frank Nelson as a gift to the City of Saratoga, which declined the offer. We have enjoyed seeing the property remain an orchard through the intervening years, but have been aware that this was a privilege and not a right in perpetuity of the property owners in the immediate vicinity. The argument that we need more parks and open space in this neigh - bor,Tkood simply does not square with reality. Foothill Park and Wildwood Park lie within approximately half a mile from Nelson Gardens. My wife and I babysit_,our grandchildren weekly, and we frequently take them to these parks, where we normally find the usage to be very light. It has been my contention since this matter became an issue that it represents the concerns of those immediately surrounding Nelson Gardens and few others. I doubt that more than one - fourth of Saratogans even know where it is located. If an attempt is made to create a park on part or all of the property, it is almost certain to involve taxing the citizenry to create and maintain it. I would be adamantly opposed to such taxation, and it it were to be proposed the entire population of Saratoga should have an opportunity to vote on the matter. I appreciate your considering my views, which I am sure are shared by many of the more quiet types in our great community. Sincerely, r/ i October 5, 1994 Mayor and City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Honorable Mayor Burger and City Council Members ,Jacobs, Moran, Tucker and Wolfe, It would be a great loss for Saratoga if the Nelson Gardens were not saved for future development as a public park. The Nelson Gardens Task Force that was established by the Saratoga City Council in 1988 indicated that it is feasible to develop this property for public use. The city's 1990 Open Space Survey showed that Saratogans are strongly in favor of conserving the city's rapidly diminishing open space. We urge you not to approve private development of the Nelson Gardens and thereby shut off possible action to preserve this special parcel for use as Saratoga open space. Thank you. Sincerely, Robert and Louise Gager 20972 Saratoga Hills Road Saratoga, CA 95070 m,e, t, /ff-�/ 8A OCT 5 1994 CITY MANAGER`$ CITICE 0 ✓�aevv �2��iv -o ire ,atiUV..P�r ✓<:�*icexir�e -rte 0 ilo S��„ 8A ell- Dean Weston 20774 Pontiac Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 6 L pit! Red Bellied Woodpecker Mary Beth LoPiccolo 7be zebra -back, red croum and repetitive pecking noise distinguisb this land bird from all others. 7be female only has the red at the nape of ber neck. Measuring 8TWL 10 ", tbey feed on wood- boring insects, some fruits and seeds. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER INCWD"1C MINIMUM OF 25% POST CONSUMER I� AND 25% PRE CONSUMER FIBER Ca _dr MADE IN LISA 01994 5069439 I X City of Saratoga 10 -5 -94 At: City Council City Hall, Saratoga, CA 95070 In Re Nelson Gardens It is our feeling that the hope of converting the Nelson untended orchard into a "Garden" is not realistic, primarily for fiscal reasons. A reasonable time has elapsed for those most interested to achieve their desired results, and no concrete solution has been forthcoming. The City is not in a position to purchase the land and create another Park in this area, particularly since the adjacent Foothill Park remains very much underutilized. We are not sympathetic to a Plan of Maximum Units, but do support a lesser density, possibly with a Green Belt on Pontiac and Trinity, Landscaped naturally, with various fruit trees, Redwoods, and other drought tolerant natives. This Green Belt could approximate the offered 2 acres, and also, its maintainance could be assured by a Deed Stipulation on the Developed Lots. This approach would create a maintained Green Belt and Open Space area, would cost the City nothing, and would secure needed support for Hakone and other uses. Sincerely, illia oun 2140 Sar oga Hills Rd Saratoga CA 95070 1 V�giniaYoung MAIWIN AIVD sass/ COHN 9840 Vlf WRlDO7f DRWf 15ARIAT00A CAL llxomm October 5, 1;94 city co#acil city of Saratoga 55777 Amitvale Aveaae Saratoga, California Dear city Cowd Members: MAI Wkle my hasband and l are #noble to attend the city comwil meeting oa October 50 we want to share with yo# oar stand regardhg the Nelson C7ardens. We hope that o#r mp#t will help to save the Nelson C7ardm so that o#r children and their children can have access to (and enjoy) the benef is that this small tract of land has to offer. The Nelson Darden sho#ld be preserved as it is an imMtant part of Saratoga history that will be lost if efforts aw t made to preserve it. It offers a chance for the citizens of Saratoga to have an opmt#nity to apprxiate gxet smro#ndings in location which is increasingly Awoming more stressf#1 and "citif/w We hope that yo# can save this bea#tif#1 site. Sincerely, saran Cohn